Creation Science/Making Headway - Dallas News

[Delta4Embassy]

Over time things change, get edited, updated, thrown out entirely as new dichotomies come into favor, etc. Modern versions of the Bible show this well in how seemingly every year a new version of the same translation comes out. If they're not changing things, why the new versions?

I myself have actually caught Jewish sites doing this. One verse and instance stands out. In TOrah where it says God is a jealous God, the site said that one week, the next week it said 'zealous' God. When I wrote in about it they denied it swearing up and down it'd had always been 'zealous' and never 'jealous.' Uh sorry guys but 'jealous God' is the sort of thing that stands out a little bit.

If we can never agree on the texts then we can never have a productive conversation. I personally believe that God is trustworthy and able. If He has a point to make He will find a way to make it (in spite of man's imperfections and interference). I believe in the ultimate providence of God and that the Bible (KJV and others based around the Textus Receptus) is His Word as He intended man to see it. If we can't trust what our Bibles say then we're wasting time discussing biblical issues.

Can agree on religious texts despite the changes once you accept and recognize they DO change. Just compare as many version from as many time periods as you can. If they say the same thing or express the same sentiment, then that can be said to be reliable. If meanings change significantly though then obviously not.

 

[rdean]

If there is such a thing as "creation", "science" speculates that it was an event that occurred around 13 billion years ago.

If there is such a thing as "evolution", common sense dictates that it began around 13 billion years ago...

The "creation" right wingers are talking about happened just 6,000 years ago over a period of 7 days. I thought everyone knew that.

 

[Mr. H.]

The "creation" right wingers are talking about happened just 6,000 years ago over a period of 7 days. I thought everyone knew that.

This right winger knows that and disagrees with it vehemently.
Vomitously
Varmintly.
Well, spell check still works.

 

[DriftingSand]

At least you admit that my religion is "under assault." That's my point. The thread is supposed to be a discussion about the ICR and their scientific research but has been reduced to "an assault." AS USUAL!!!

 

[DriftingSand]

Funny how when ever it's your religion under assault you try making a federal case out of it. But when you attack other's be it atheism, Islam, or something else, that's cool.

At least you admit that my religion is "under assault." That's my point. The thread is supposed to be a discussion about the ICR and their scientific research but has been reduced to "an assault." AS USUAL!!! If you read my posts you'll see that I don't go to other threads and pester anyone for their personally held religious views.

 

[Rikurzhen]

When evolutionists claim that creationists are stupid because of their arguments, they might be more correct than they think. After all, how stupid to you have to be to believe the earth was made 10,000 years ago?

This same claim is made against Liberal Creationists, those who believe that evolution happened in all life forms, including man, but then stopped dead in mankind 10,000 years ago and also believe that evolutionary processes are stopped by some invisible forcefield and don't work above the neck.

These Liberal Creationists are known to chant their religious prayer "Race is only a social construction." These Liberal Creationists are known to target heretics and unbelievers with the charge "racist."

Anyone who accepts evolution cannot accept it only half-way. That's like being a little bit pregnant.

So are you a little bit pregnant? Do you accept evolution as it applies to humans and to racial variation? Or are you a Liberal Creationist who is just as ignorant and clinging to your Liberal Religious Dogma as Religious Creationists cling to theirs?

Moreover, if we're going to rag on people for believing in nonsense and make the claim that this matters to the public, Religious Creationists are small time compared to the damage caused by Liberal Creationists, for their religious viewpoint ACTUALLY FORMS THE BASIS OF PUBLIC POLICY.

All these Liberal Creationists who crow about their love of evolution and the importance of all people understanding and accepting evolution can't actually point to ONE FEDERAL POLICY which uses evolution as the basis for it's existence. If evolution is so important to Liberals, then why do Liberals completely ignore evolutionary principles in the realm of governing human affairs?

 

[Hollie]

At least you admit that my religion is "under assault." That's my point. The thread is supposed to be a discussion about the ICR and their scientific research but has been reduced to "an assault." AS USUAL!!! If you read my posts you'll see that I don't go to other threads and pester anyone for their personally held religious views.

To suggest that the ICR does legitimate scientific research is laughable.

 

[DriftingSand]

To suggest that the ICR does legitimate scientific research is laughable.

And yet you've never bothered to read any of it. Now THAT's laughable! See you later troll.

 

[Hollie]

And yet you've never bothered to read any of it. Now THAT's laughable! See you later troll.

Pretty typical behavior when you're unable to respond.

Identify the peer reviewed research done by the ICR.

 

[sealybobo]

What has it given us?

Evolution has given us vaccines, an understanding the human body and the study of it's evolution teaches us how to treat existing and newly discovered disease.

What has magical creation given us?

I never realized christians aren't the only ones who tell a creation story:

Creation myths often share a number of features. They often are considered sacred accounts and can be found in nearly all known religious traditions. They are all stories with a plot and characters who are either deities, human-like figures, or animals, who often speak and transform easily. They are often set in a dim and nonspecific past.

Creation myths develop in oral traditions and therefore typically have multiple versions and are the most common form of myth, found throughout human culture.

Myth narrates a sacred history; it relates an event that took place in primordial Time, the fabled time of the "beginnings." In other words, myth tells how, through the deeds of Supernatural Beings, a reality came into existence, be it the whole of reality, the Cosmos, or only a fragment of reality

It just dawned on me. At this point in man's evolution, evolution is the FACT. Creation is the myth. Creation myth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Creation is just the best way our primitive ancestors could explain how we got here.

 

[sealybobo]

Oh my gosh. "Evolution gave us vaccines?" There's a thread somewhere in the flame zone where stupid quotes are posted. My I please quote you?

Some of our greatest scientists and physicians have been devout Christians.

They've been able to put their religion on hold my friend otherwise we wouldn't even have cures. Before science religion just said dying was god's will. Science said fuck god I'll come up with a cure god damn it!

And maybe today you can say religion doesn't fight science AS MUCH AS IT USE TO but you can't escape the past. Religion in fear of science has held us back maybe over 1000 years as far as science goes.

In the past we were ignorant and thought god was responsible for everything good and bad that happened. Then we got enlightened.

The Age of Enlightenment (or simply the Enlightenment or Age of Reason) was a cultural movement of intellectuals beginning in late 17th-century Europe emphasizing reason and individualism rather than tradition.[1] Its purpose was to reform society using reason, to challenge ideas grounded in tradition and faith, and to advance knowledge through the scientific method. It promoted scientific thought, skepticism, and intellectual interchange. The Enlightenment was a revolution in human thought. This new way of thinking was that rational thought begins with clearly stated principles, uses correct logic to arrive at conclusions, tests the conclusions against evidence, and then revises the principles in the light of the evidence.

Enlightenment thinkers opposed superstition. Some Enlightenment thinkers collaborated with Enlightened despots, absolutist rulers who attempted to forcibly put some of the new ideas about government into practice. The ideas of the Enlightenment continue to exert significant influence on the culture, politics, and governments of the Western world.

Now today even the Catholic Church studies science. Why? If you can't beat them, join them. The church evolves/changes every time it is proven wrong. I'm done believing.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Pretty typical behavior when you're unable to respond.

Identify the peer reviewed research done by the ICR.

because we all know, if a lot of people agree with you, you win!.......

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

‘Creation science’ is an oxymoron.
Creationism is religion, not ‘science,’ it’s just as false and subjective as all other religion.

The master of sloganeering spouted.

Tell us how creationism is false?

The essence of creationism is this: God exists; He created the universe; biological history is a series of creative events and extinctions over time entailing micro-evolutionary processes. The age of the universe and the Earth are, in truth, not relevant except in the minds of those who hold to the prescientific hermeneutics of Ussher's chronology: Prufrock's Lair: Elementary, My Dear Watson: A Rebuttal of Ken Ham's "Days of Decline in the Church"



Tells us how abiogenesis is true, and tells us how evolutionary theory is in any real sense a falsifiable scientific theory. Indeed, tell us how your religion of metaphysical naturalism is scientifically falsifiable.

Here, let David Berlinski help you understand what the real problems, which you’ve never thought about, are:

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

What if creationism is science?

And what is metaphysical naturalism? Science. Hell no!

The "creation" right wingers are talking about happened just 6,000 years ago over a period of 7 days. I thought everyone knew that.

False. That's not necessarily true at all. The essence of the matter is creationism proper (the core) versus metaphysical naturalism.

 

[BillyP]

because we all know, if a lot of people agree with you, you win!.......

Isn't that why all you biblers come here? Because if you can get everyone to consider the bible fact, you'll feel better?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

It can't be. That's the point of calling it an oxymoron.

The heart of science is the test of falsification. What this means is that a scientist sets out to disprove a hypothesis rather than prove it. For instance, I set out to disprove that gravity exists. Every time I fail to disprove, I strengthen the theory of gravity. If in one test I open my hand and the ball fell upwards and this could be repeated by other people, then every single other test out there which helped strengthen the theory would be valueless - I falsified the theory of gravity.

How do you create a test to falsify the hypothesis that "God created man?" Science involves tests, not just word games and arguments and references to The Bible. Religious Creationism doesn't have any such tests, it never puts itself in front of the speeding car to test itself. It's not science. It's storytelling. It tries to find convincing arguments to strengthen its position but it never tries to disprove any hypotheses.

Religious creationism has an agenda, it wants its positions to grow stronger. Science doesn't have such an agenda, science is willing to throw out everything if you can falsify a hypothesis. Science wants to create deeper understanding.

Exactly how are abiogenesis, evolutionary theory (a collection of anecdotes, really, with no predictive power, entailing a form of speciation that’s never been observed) and, most of all, metaphysical naturalism falsifiable?

Once again, what many have never grasped or thought about:

 

[Vandalshandle]

Texas "science" is really kind of fun. It has a surreal quality, kind of like a Salvador Dali painting....

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Isn't that why all you biblers come here? Because if you can get everyone to consider the bible fact, you'll feel better?

Actually, guys like me, a former evolutionist who actually knows the science inside and out, unlike most of you self-identified evolutionists of pop culture, come here to discuss the pertinent scientific, philosophical and theological problems as a matter of intellectual stimulation and growth. But I've yet to encounter an evolutionist on this board or virtually any other that has the first clue about what the actual problems are.

Instead, what I typically read is rank ignorance about what creationism ultimately is ontologically and mindless slogans. I have yet to encounter an evolutionist who adequately grasps the ramifications of the fact that the entire edifice of evolutionary theory is bottomed on nothing more than the unfalsifiable presupposition of metaphysical naturalism, the unfalsifiable presupposition of a speciation of a common ancestry from the progressive nature of the fossil record and a recently falsified retroviral theory of genetics.

If biological history is in reality a progressive series of creative events and extinctions over time, the genetic and fossil records would look the same. The age of the universe and that of the Earth are not relevant to the central realities or to the central issue.

Knock. Knock. Hello! Anybody home?

No. Once again, apparently not. Oh well, I'll keep trying to find a truly inquisitive, non-dogmatically closed mind to discuss the matter with from time to time. It might happen.

 

[BillyP]

Actually, guys like me, a former evolutionist who actually knows the science inside and out, unlike most of you self-identified evolutionists of pop culture, come here to discuss the pertinent scientific, philosophical and theological problems as a matter of intellectual stimulation and growth. But I've yet to encounter an evolutionist on this board or virtually any other that has the first clue about what the actual problems are.

Instead, what I typically read is rank ignorance about what creationism ultimately is ontologically and mindless slogans. I have yet to encounter an evolutionist who adequately grasps the ramifications of the fact that the entire edifice of evolutionary theory is bottomed on nothing more than the unfalsifiable presupposition of metaphysical naturalism, the unfalsifiable presupposition of a speciation of a common ancestry from the progressive nature of the fossil record and a recently falsified retroviral theory of genetics.

If biological history is in reality a progressive series of creative events and extinctions over time, the genetic and fossil records would look the same. The age of the universe and that of the Earth are not relevant to the central realities or to the central issue.

Knock. Knock. Hello! Anybody home?

No. Once again, apparently not. Oh well, I'll keep trying to find a truly inquisitive, non-dogmatically closed mind to discuss the matter with from time to time. It might happen.

So you didn't think there was enough evidence for evolution so now you go with something that has zero proof? You're right: Knock, Knock, anybody home?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

So you didn't think there was enough evidence for evolution so now you go with something that has zero proof? You're right: Knock, Knock, anybody home?

Did you mean zero proof or zero evidence?

See, this is precisely the kind of ignorance I'm talking about. Proofs are mathematic or rational demonstrations. There's plenty of evidence for creationism proper and always has been.

What are the proofs for a common ancestry or metaphysical naturalism?

Good luck with that.

More information on the problems that most of you have never considered: